Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Tiberius]

I see no conflict because there is no conflict.
Again, your bias prevents you from thinking logically.

Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims so He is responsible to tell us what the evidence is that backs up His claims. That is why Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Who else would tell us what the evidence is, Santa Claus?

If I claimed that I have a brand new red car in my garage and you wanted the evidence I would be required to prove that to you by telling you what the evidence is.

In short, the claimant is responsible to provide the evidence. Baha'u'llah was the claimant so He was responsible to tell us what the evidence is that backs up His claims, if He wants us to believe His claims.

So what? Everything he says could be a lie, and thus his claims fall apart. You are using what he says to conclude that he is telling the truth. But I could make up whatever nonsense I wanted and as long as any inconsistencies could be explained away, you would be forced to reach the conclusion that my nonsensical claims we true as well. At least, if that was your only criteria.

What is valid for me will never be valid for you.

Reality is not subjective.

If your reasoning can not be verified independently, then it is not valid for ANYONE, no matter how much you believe it is valid for you.

I have no premise because religious beliefs cannot be proven true. I have a belief and my conclusions are based upon my belief.

That your belief is true IS your premise.

Yes, because that has proven to be true.

Tell that to Kevin Spacey, who was fired because his sexual misconduct was made public. Why didn't he conclude that it was good for his image that people were talking about him? Or how about Monsanto and Bayer, who were fined $25 million in their court case regarding roundup, despite the fact that the actual scientific evidence did not support that conclusion? Publicity about the roundup cases did not seem to help them at all, did it?

 

[Tiberius]

God wants it to be believable but God does not want it to be so obvious that everyone can see it because then there would be no way to separate the godly from the froward, as that passage said. The paragraph that preceded that one explains how God operates when it comes to people believing in Him.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people it means that God could have made all people believe in Him, but If God has pleased means that God did not want to make all people into believers, since we know that God could have if He had wanted to. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to do our own homework and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort (the wayward and perverse).

Yeah, you do realise that the whole thing just appears to be excuses, since why would God not want everyone to be believers?

 

[Tiberius]

If there was something in those Writings that contradicted what I have already read that would be a cause for concern and I would want to understand why it was contradictory but I don't think it would cause me to conclude my beliefs are wrong. Even if I did not agree with something Baha'u'llah wrote I would not think I know more than Him.

Then there's another bias - you are biased towards accepting any Bahai text, even if you don't understand or agree with it.

I once saw a Christian say that if the Bible said that 2+2=5, he would not say it is wrong, but try to find a way that it was true. It seems to me that you are doing a similar thing.

As I said, the Baha'i Faith takes no position on scientific matters.

Does it take a position on the MORALITY of how scientific advances are used?

I said there was nothing written by the Messengers but what men wrote about them, what they said or taught, counts for the original scriptures since that is the closest we have to originals. It opens up a Pandora's box if we start asking how those scripture writers knew what the Messengers said or taught. Of course, Christians believe that the Bible authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is plausible and some Baha'is believe that.

Why none of the earlier Messengers of God wrote anything in their own pens like Baha'ullah did is because humanity was not yet ready for scriptures that came directly from the Messenger since humanity was not yet that spiritually evolved. Even now, most people are not ready and many people cannot understand how Baha'u'llah's Writings, but since they were written for the next 1000 years (from 1852 AD) people will gradually evolve spiritually and more people will be able to understand them. Fortunately, for people who cannot understand what Baha'u'llah wrote we have other Baha'i Writings that interpreted what He wrote since Baha'u'llah appointed interpreters in His will.

And of course, this claim is completely unfalsifiable, isn't it?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The answer to this, is revealed in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means energy, in some form or another, has always existed.
Hence, this discovery answers that question, and accommodates a view that supports an eternally-existing God.

That's the 1st Law (sorry to be a pedant).

The 2nd Law, often associated with Time's Arrow, states that in a closed system, entropy always increases. The implication is that as energy is redistributed throughout the universe, as heat passes from hot to cold matter, and as order gives way to disorder, time always flows in the direction of increased entropy. Within that framework, the order of time is established, as is the relation of cause and effect.

The further implication is that in conditions of thermal equilibrium, (which may eventually come about when all energy is evenly distributed between all the particles of all the matter in the universe, or which may already pertain at a level beyond our limited perspective), there is no direction to time, therefore the relation we observe between cause and effect ceases to apply in the way we understand it. Time, as we experience it, ceases to exist, and may only ever have been a function of our perspective in the first place.

Some people catch a glimpse of this stuff, and think, "how truly miraculous all of existence is", while others think "see what science can tell us - who needs God and miracles?"
It really depends what sort of person you are; does mankind's voyage of discovery tell us everything is miraculous, or does it tell us nothing is? The difference, imo, is entirely one of perspective.

 

[samtonga43]

Do I look surprised that people disagree with me? No, I would be surprised if they agreed with me.

I, too, would be surprised if they agreed with you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think the person who posted this has bailed on the conversation maybe even RF, which is understandable. Of course a request such as his would end up a back and forth.

Looks like this was the final post.

Religions actively employ the cycle of abuse.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes I have shown you. Many times.
Are my many explanations of bible verses not logical, are they not reasonable?
Was my explanation of the Exodus not logical, not reasonable?
Was my explanation of the process of turning lead into gold not logical, not reasonable?

What about my explanation of how Moses separated the sea, and Muhammed separated the moon, being exactly the same thing as Jesus picking the corn. Was that not logical, not reasonable?


I am not a man of faith Tiberius.


Listen:

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43

Does that validate, or not?


.

You have provided word play, nothing more. It's the text version of numerology. Meaningless.

 

[night912]

No, it is not a claim, I have just verified for myself that Baha'u'llah's claims are true. I make no claims because I have nothing to claim.

That's illogical because you are contradicting yourself. It's only logical that since you have accepted his truth claim, that he is a messenger of God, as being true, you have also adopted that claim. Both of you have accepted that he is a messenger of God. But at the same time, you are also saying that you don't claim that he is a messenger of God. That means that you don't accept that he is a messenger of God. Once you interact and share your beliefs with someone else, you are making the claim that what you believe in, is true, regardless of you making a formal argument or not.

With that said, there's a twist to this. I am still being logical if I accept that he actually made that claim but reject his actual claim itself as being true. This is because I presented two separate claims in that statement. I only accept one of the claim to be true.

Claim A = he made that claim

Claim B = his actual claim itself

I accept Claim A, and only Claim A, as being true. You on the hand, have accepted both Claim A and Claim B as being true. This discussion focuses mainly on Claim A.

Look at it this way. I accept that you, being a theist, claim that a god exist. I remain to be an atheist because I have not accepted the claim that a god exist. As for you, you've accepted the claim that a god exist, therefore by default, if being logical, you also accept that you are claiming that a god exist.

 

[night912]

Give it up for lost. Your bias is impossible to break through because you can't even see it. Did you even read the passage I posted before you formed an opinion? No you just jumped to conclusions as to what He meant, another fallacy. Baha'u'llah WAS NOT telling us how to recognize Him; He was telling us how to recognize a Manifestation of God. He was saying not to go by what other people say or do but rather you should investigate for yourself. That was the only criteria He gave.

So you lied about him saying that one should look at the "character," "work/mission," and "revelation?" Correct me if I'm wrong about you not saying that.

But if he did say it, then the criterion for verifying a true messenger of God is strictly going off of what he said. And obviously, since he did claim to be a messenger of God, those criterion he made up would be aligned with his life. So basically he is telling us (I'm paraphrasing), "that the way of recognizing a true manifestation of God is by using the criterion I am telling you. And because you have followed my criterion through your own investigation, I fit the criterion I made up, therefore, I'm a true messenger of God."


Keep in mind that he wrote this during and/or after his mission of revealing God's message. And we should assume that he is clever enough to come up with the criterion that he would fit, since he did claim that he is a messenger of God. According to his criterion that he made up, he qualifies as being a messenger of God, but not his brother.

 

[firedragon]

Your analogy is loaded, you are comparing God to something like gravity which demonstrably and obviously exists, whilst there is no known evidence for God whatsoever.

Whats the evidence for gravity? Can you give me some scientific explanation as to why gravity takes place? Established facts.

 

[firedragon]

ETA Therefore a more relevant analogy would be like saying, "because the ancient greeks got the theory wrong, Zues doesn't exist"

In my opinion.

Please give that analogy to Tiberius and get his response. thanks.

 

[firedragon]

You think I'm saying, "The Bible has inconsistencies, therefore there is no God"?

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying, "The Bible has inconsistencies, therefore we can't be sure that its claims about the existence of God are accurate."

To apply it to your Newton example, it would be like saying, "Newton's equations don't quite match up with what we see in reality, therefore we much conclude there's something else going on that we haven't accounted for."

See, if the Bible or any book for that matter has inconsistencies, that simply means that particular book has inconsistencies. But now that you say that the claims in that particular book cannot be trusted, I agree that is a valid position.

 

[danieldemol]

Whats the evidence for gravity?

Evidence for gravity is that if you walk off a cliff you will be pulled towards the centre of the earth for example.

Can you give me some scientific explanation as to why gravity takes place?

Irrelevant question, we don't need to know how something works to know that it does work, or that it exists.

If we needed to know how something works to know that it exists then you would have to explain how Allah magic works to know your God exists.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Irrelevant question,

Very good. Exactly. Thats irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

If we needed to know how something works to know that it exists then you would have to explain how Allah magic works to know your God exists.

Very clever. You get a prize.

 

[firedragon]

Evidence for gravity is that if you walk off a cliff you will be pulled towards the centre of the earth for example.

Just for the sake of curiosity, you are wrong according to Einstein.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said, "the reason the religions contradict each other is because the original messages from the Messenger have been misinterpreted and thus misunderstood by the religious believers."

That was your assertion, and since you have nothing to support it, I dismiss it.

I could support it but it is not my job to support it. Do you think I care if you dismiss it?

And once again you commit the same crime you have accused me of.

You did not say, "I have noticed that atheists do such and such." You just made the statement that they do. Thus, you made a claim.

And you have had a go at me for speaking for believers in the past, and yet now you presume to speak for non-believers.

Crime? They do say that, that is why I said that they do. I know what 'some' atheists said because they said it to me. I am not speaking for 'all' atheists.

I don't. But if your position depends that there are things spiritual in nature, then I'm going to ask you to provide evidence for the claims you make.

You can ask all you want, just don't expect to get what you ask for. No evidence would suffice for you so why would I waste my time?

You can avoid it by producing testable evidence for the claims you make.

I already told you there is no such evidence.

Claiming that it is obviously allegorical does not mean it is. The only reason, I suspect, that you claim it is allegorical is because you know it falls apart as soon as it is interpreted any other way.

Believe whatever you want to believe. I believe it is allegorical because nobody can "literally" move mountains.

Given that there is no valid evidence whatsoever to support anything spiritual in nature, and the claims of those who believe in a spiritual nature are often wildly inconsistent, I see no reason to assume it exists. As a result, a lack of belief in the spiritual is the most reasonable course of action.

It is reasonable for those who don't have any religion or belief in God.

You did not phrase it as your opinion.

I do not have to say "in my opinion" before or after everything I write. Did you say it was your opinion when you said what you thought the verses meant?

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? Everything he says could be a lie, and thus his claims fall apart. You are using what he says to conclude that he is telling the truth. But I could make up whatever nonsense I wanted and as long as any inconsistencies could be explained away, you would be forced to reach the conclusion that my nonsensical claims we true as well. At least, if that was your only criteria.

NO, I am not using what He said to conclude that He was telling the truth. I am using who He was and what He did, as Jesus suggested in Matthew 7:15-20.

Reality is not subjective.

If your reasoning can not be verified independently, then it is not valid for ANYONE, no matter how much you believe it is valid for you.

Spiritual reality is subjective and cannot be verified except by the person experiencing it.
Spiritual reality is valid for the person who experiences it.

That your belief is true IS your premise.

Logic cannot be applied to religious beliefs because they can never be proven true or false.
That my belief is true is what I believe.

Tell that to Kevin Spacey, who was fired because his sexual misconduct was made public. Why didn't he conclude that it was good for his image that people were talking about him? Or how about Monsanto and Bayer, who were fined $25 million in their court case regarding roundup, despite the fact that the actual scientific evidence did not support that conclusion? Publicity about the roundup cases did not seem to help them at all, did it?

“No one casts stones at a tree without fruit. No one tries to extinguish a lamp without light! …….

And I say unto you that no calumny is able to prevail against the Light of God; it can only result in causing it to be more universally recognized. If a cause were of no significance, who would take the trouble to work against it!

But always the greater the cause the more do enemies arise in larger and larger numbers to attempt its overthrow! The brighter the light the darker the shadow! Our part it is to act in accordance with the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh in humility and firm steadfastness.” Paris Talks, pp. 105-106

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, you do realise that the whole thing just appears to be excuses, since why would God not want everyone to be believers?

God does want everyone to be a believer but only on His terms.
Think about it. If God wanted everyone to be believers on your terms, then everyone would be a believer, since an omnipotent God can do anything He wants to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then there's another bias - you are biased towards accepting any Bahai text, even if you don't understand or agree with it.

I once saw a Christian say that if the Bible said that 2+2=5, he would not say it is wrong, but try to find a way that it was true. It seems to me that you are doing a similar thing.

That is not a bias, it's called faith. It is also logical because if Baha'u'llah was infallible, as Baha'is believe, then everything He wrote is true. If I don't understand it I try to understand it. So what if I don't agree with it? I am just a fallible human, so how could I know more than an infallible Messenger of God?

Does it take a position on the MORALITY of how scientific advances are used?

Not that I am aware of although it is possible that the Universal House of Justice might legislate on such things during this age.

And of course, this claim is completely unfalsifiable, isn't it?

It's a belief, not a claim.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. belief means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. claim means - Google Search